D&D 5E Persuade, Intimidate, and Deceive used vs. PCs

[GMforPowergamers]

Based on what you're saying about what the party has done so far, how the warlock feels about this seems to be established - he doesn't care enough to stop his friends from thwarting his patron's agenda.

he is very much the lead in the 'stop hec tor kar from rising' infact stopping his patron has become his life long quest...

I see no reason to tell the warlock's player that his or her character should feel differently.

again... it's not me telling him "Hey your character thinks X Y or Z" I am using the word feel for it's other meaning... noticing a physical stimuli...

If, however, clearing out this dungeon or whatever will be the straw that breaks the camel's back and will result in some kind of consequence for the warlock specifically, then I'd just make that clear to the warlock via a vision or omen of impending doom for his transgressions or direct intervention by a proxy of the patron.

the pcs quested for a ring of mind shielding back about 10 levels ago to cut him off from his patron, and any proxy showing up is going to get there but handed to him... one of the parties go to tactics is when they know it's close let the warlock (York) kill the target telling him "When your soul gets to Hec Tor Kar, remind him we still have a score to settle."

 

[iserith]

he is very much the lead in the 'stop hec tor kar from rising' infact stopping his patron has become his life long quest...

again... it's not me telling him "Hey your character thinks X Y or Z" I am using the word feel for it's other meaning... noticing a physical stimuli...

the pcs quested for a ring of mind shielding back about 10 levels ago to cut him off from his patron, and any proxy showing up is going to get there but handed to him... one of the parties go to tactics is when they know it's close let the warlock (York) kill the target telling him "When your soul gets to Hec Tor Kar, remind him we still have a score to settle."

So the warlock is in the business of thwarting this patron. And he goes to a place built in service to his patron. Why shouldn't he just feel happy (or whatever the player decides) that he gets another shot at beating his patron? What makes this thing any different from what he's been doing so far?

 

[Shirebrok]

What the functional difference? I get that you've done a good job of 'playing Jeopardy' there, but it's the same end result.

I'm not sure how to respond to this, because I don't get the Jeopardy analogy.

But the difference is obvious, no? "You are spooked" is fundamentally different from "Spooky things are happening".

The first establishes an emotion, which is off-limits in my book. It's vague, for one thing. It doesn't really provide clues, either. If you tell me I'm spooked, the first thing I'm going to ask is what exactly is spooking me, so I can find out what's going on and overcome the spookiness.
The second describes the environment and lets me, the player, decide how I feel about it. It also clearly establishes some fiction and elements I can interact with without having to play "20 questions". I don't know about you, but I certainly feel more "immersed", more in-character this way.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So the warlock is in the business of thwarting this patron. And he goes to a place built in service to his patron. Why shouldn't he just feel happy (or whatever the player decides) that he gets another shot at beating his patron? What makes this thing any different from what he's been doing so far?

no sorry you have read it the same way my PCs did... this Dark palace isn't built by or used by Hec Tor Kar... this place was built by worshipers of a rival... and the power within the warlock doesn't want him here... it's afraid... and that's the first clue (of many) that something isn't right here.

when Ross/York (player/character) gets this information it wont mean much but as they go deeper in I hope it will help them put the pieces togather...

 

[iserith]

no sorry you have read it the same way my PCs did... this Dark palace isn't built by or used by Hec Tor Kar... this place was built by worshipers of a rival... and the power within the warlock doesn't want him here... it's afraid... and that's the first clue (of many) that something isn't right here.

when Ross/York (player/character) gets this information it wont mean much but as they go deeper in I hope it will help them put the pieces togather...

Have you previously established this "power within the warlock" as a distinct entity of some kind that sometimes communicates its own emotions to the character?

 

[sunshadow21]

IMO, a nice rule of thumb is that it's okay to describe sensory information (sight, hearing, taste, touch, smell), but emotions are off-limits.

I guess this is where I am getting stuck on this argument. The general position seems to be that somehow charisma based skills are not magic or special enough to be considered an exception in shaping character's emotions, but they are somehow more impactful than other skills, and therefore cannot follow the regular rules for skills. That doesn't make any sense to me. Either it has the same effect as magic or a class ability, and therefore would be something that I would consider to be a reasonable exception based on the effect, regardless of whether or not the source is technically magic. Or, it has the same level of impact as every other skill, with the check providing a basis to work from without absolutely forcing any particular result. I really don't get giving it the effect of magic, but because it's a non-magical source, it can't be used against the players since only magic can effect players that way. Isireth's examples, to me at least, seems to put these skills in a category all their own, creating a lot more work than simply accepting them as either similar to magic or similar to other skills, and simply using the appropriate usage and restrictions for which ever category is chosen. Trying to treat them as a little of both just seems weird to me; not bad, just weird.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Have you previously established this "power within the warlock" as a distinct entity of some kind that sometimes communicates its own emotions to the character?

not really, this will be the first time it comes up...

 

[sunshadow21]

This might be the crux of it.

I don't consider the DM to be a player. The DM does not get XP, the DM does not level up. The DM doesn't win. The DM doesn't lose.

The DM is the "game-world runner", nothing happens in the game-world unless the DM makes it happen. The dice are there to assist the DM in running the game-world and responding fairly to player actions. The players are the agents of change in the game world - which reacts to their actions (through the DM).

That's certainly one way of looking at it, but it is definitely not how I run games. NPCs can and will be agents of change just as often as the PCs will be, and plots can and will change over time in the game regardless of whether or not the PCs choose to participate in them or even attempt to learn about them or not. Different NPCs will have different levels of impact just like players that show up weekly will have a greater impact than those that show up monthly. Anybody who sits down at my game expecting this perfectly neutral arbitrater who relies mostly on dice to respond to player actions is going to be severely disappointed. I rely on the dice at exactly the same level as the players, no more and no less. If my players want to be able to effect NPCs with dice rolls, it can be used against them in similar circumstances; if they want to stick to strictly roleplay, pulling out dice only for combat or really tough situations, than the NPCs will as well. I do try to balance this out by providing documents describing the key parts of the world and campaign as far as they have been developed to this point, and I constantly am updating those documents with new informaton as the campaign develops, but if a player isn't willing to spend a half hour out of game to read them, I can't do much to help them. While there are DMs out there that can do a really good job of descriptions while also managing the other parts of the game, I am not one of them, and I have seen out of the more than a dozen DMs I've played under maybe 2 or 3 that I would consider truly proficient at it.

I do not personally enjoy playing in, nor will I ever run, a campaign where the DM is simply a narrator who uses dice to resolve uncertainty. I don't want a world or NPCs that simply respond to my actions; I want a world and NPCs that give me something to respond to as much as I give them stuff to respond to. It's very much a two way street. I have never liked the idea that somehow NPCs and PCs are fundamentally different, not in video games and not at the table. The DM may not have the same role as the players, but that doesn't make the DM's role any less active on the roleplay side. Just because an NPC will only show up for that scene, doesn't mean that I put any less effort into running that NPC as true as possible to the paragraph of information I've worked up for them than the players put into their characters.

 

[iserith]

I guess this is where I am getting stuck on this argument. The general position seems to be that somehow charisma based skills are not magic or special enough to be considered an exception in shaping character's emotions, but they are somehow more impactful than other skills, and therefore cannot follow the regular rules for skills. That doesn't make any sense to me. Either it has the same effect as magic or a class ability, and therefore would be something that I would consider to be a reasonable exception based on the effect, regardless of whether or not the source is technically magic. Or, it has the same level of impact as every other skill, with the check providing a basis to work from without absolutely forcing any particular result. I really don't get giving it the effect of magic, but because it's a non-magical source, it can't be used against the players since only magic can effect players that way. Isireth's examples, to me at least, seems to put these skills in a category all their own, creating a lot more work than simply accepting them as either similar to magic or similar to other skills, and simply using the appropriate usage and restrictions for which ever category is chosen. Trying to treat them as a little of both just seems weird to me; not bad, just weird.

It's not any more "work" than any other adjudication. The DM determines success, failure, or uncertainty as with any action that is taken. In the case of an NPC trying to deceive, intimidate, or persuade a player character, there is no uncertainty because the player decides what happens. If anything it's less work since there is no roll at all in my approach - I describe, players respond, and that's it.

 

[iserith]

not really, this will be the first time it comes up...

I don't understand the full context of your campaign, but if it's the warlock's patron that's scared, then I don't see why it need affect the warlock at all. If I were you and thought this was important enough to spend time on, I'd try to figure out a way to demonstrate the patron's fear in some fashion that doesn't tell the player how his or her character feels.